Remember back in 2000 when the Republicanists belittled elderly (and minority) voters, claiming that 'if they failed to fill out their ballots correctly, and failed to follow the simple voting rules, then they're idiots and their votes shouldn't be counted'? They made the case over and over again, cynically, of course, because it would mean that, even though more voters had intended to vote for Al Gore than George W. Bush (and actually did [PDF], had they bothered to count them all) Bush should still be allowed to "win" the Presidency.

Well, as we've had to say so many times during our previouscoverage of the GOP flip-floppery that is the election contest of former Senator Norm Coleman against Al Franken in MN: that was then and this is now.

At right, take a look at the short, approximately 1-minute video of Coleman (and FL 2000 Bush v. Gore) attorney Ben Ginsberg, trying to keep a straight face in a presser after his team argued today that yet another cherry-picked voter/witness whose absentee ballot was legitimately rejected --- in this case because she failed to sign the ballot --- should have her vote counted anyway.

Like we said, that was then and this now. So never mind that whole "voter fraud" argument. Not useful today for the GOP opportunists. And now, while I'll try to stay out of the deep weeds tonight on today's proceedings at the Coleman/Franken circus (you're welcome), Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com argues convincingly --- based on fairly reliable reads of usually-predictable WSJ and other Wingnut Tea Leaves --- that Team Coleman may ultimately be angling for a do-over. That is, a re-vote for the entire election.

He may be right. Though there may be another plan, even though admittedly, the Coleman campaign is largely making all of this up as they go along, and any or all of the following guesswork may end up being their "strategy"...

"Norm Coleman's goal might not be to pull ahead of Al Franken outright," via the election contest, Silver suggests, "but rather to create enough confusion and uncertainty around the outcome of the recount that the Senate calls for a re-vote in Minnesota, as it did in the New Hampshire Senate Race of 1974."

Given a few more carefully placed articles that Silver noticed, "suggests that these are the preferred talking points of the Coleman campaign --- talking points which evidently involve planting the seed of a re-vote in the public's head." (Cue Hannity for tomorrow, especially since Rush is on vacation this week.)

The strategy seems like a very long shot to me, but so was it when Ginsberg and friends went to SCOTUS in 2000 to ask their friends to keep everybody from counting anybody's vote in FL, on the basis that counting any of them, would somehow disenfranchise all of them. Or some absurd nonsense that we all sat around and allowed to pass for "democracy" way back when.

The shameless WSJ whackos (Hi, John Fund!) will undoubtedly make whatever case they need in order to support their GOP buddies ambitions, democracy and Constitution-be-damned. But, as the ultimate decision to declare the seat "vacant" --- and thus, force a new special election --- would belong to a Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate, a better chance for Coleman may lie in the federal issues being raised, "over and over," by his legal team, as AP notes, based on the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

Even though there were strict standards across the entire state of MN, to determine which absentee ballots should and shouldn't be counted (unlike FL 2000), Coleman has been building a case to suggest the application of those standards wasn't applied equally everywhere. Therefore, they are maintaining, all rejected absentee ballots should now be counted. Or at least the 11,000 or so that Coleman would like to see added to the total, many of which he had previously argued against counting back during the hand-count when he thought he was winning.

The equal protection argument, as weak and as backwards as it is now being applied in MN versus the way the Republicanists made their case in FL, may at least find favor among the still reliably GOP-leaning justices of the SCOTUS.

On the other hand, lending Silver's thesis a well-deserved benefit of the doubt here, the same Wingnut Tea Leaves, as reported via AP over the weekend, don't necessarily (yet) support my contention of a SCOTUS scheme. Though that may just be because talking points haven't yet been well enough circulated.

Jan Baran, a D.C. election attorney and former general counsel for the RNC told AP she believes the SCOTUS route is "a long shot," then hastened to add: "But it worked for Bush v. Gore."

Partisan UCLA law professor, Daniel Lowenstein, a member of the McCain campaign's so-called "Honest Election Committee," also pooh-poohed the federal challenge, telling AP that he thinks this contest is "a state law question."

Moreover, TPM's Eric Kleefeld, who has been reporting from the courtroom, has a theory which supports Silver's, in a sense. "The Coleman team appears to be laying out a continued strategy of casting doubt on the legitimacy of the Minnesota election result by pointing to a fundamental underlying idea of this dispute: The margin of error is simply too big in a race this close."

If Kleefeld is right, and Coleman makes the case that we simply can't rely on the numbers because it's just "too close to call", the strategy would certainly lend credence to Silver's "create enough confusion and uncertainty around the outcome of the recount" suggestion, to then try and force a do-over.

But, as I promised to stay out of the weeds tonight (sorry, I may have failed) just two more quick points for now:

1) Franken's team seems to be doing a nice job of rebutting the cases of those friendly, cherry-picked witnesses being called by Coleman to testify that their votes should be counted, even though, as we noted last week, several of them clearly were legitimately rejected, and one even admitted to fraud and forgery on the stand. See Kleefeld today here and here for more on Franken's effective rebuttals today.

2) Had Democrats ever fought as hard for every single vote as Republicans always do in any election that even approximates being close, President Gore or President Kerry would likely have ensured a very different judicial balance on that SCOTUS by now.

As we promised, The BRAD BLOG covered your electoral system 2008, tirelessly, fiercely and independently, like no other media outlet in the nation. Please support our work, which only you help to fund, with a donation to help us continue the work so few are willing to do. If you like, we'll send you some great, award-winning election integrity documentary films in return! Details on that right here...

2) Had Democrats ever fought as hard for every single vote as Republicans always do in any election that even approximates being close, President Gore or President Kerry would likely have ensured a very different judicial balance on that SCOTUS by now.

That said it all right there, Brad. The Dems have needed some cajones. I think Franken's legal team is doing great, but I think they could do better in the media. But in general, the dems need to grow a pair. Coleman's talking points are getting out there, and are not properly rebutted in the mainstream media.

Minnesota did have people actually vote at the polls on election day, didn't they?

If so, were they really able to totally eliminate the "provisional ballots," "spoiled ballots," and "voided ballots" that have been a staple of most recent elections to the tune of 2-3% of all ballots cast (and were generally 75% lower income, lower educational level, and/or minority)?

I only ask because those types of ballots are NEVER talked about, and their numbers (if they were similar to the percentages in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006) would dwarf the absentee ballots being discussed.

Franken doesn't BELIEVE in Rethuglican election theft, of course, so wouldn't necessarily even be LOOKING for it.

ya can bet if franken was the one with a legal cloud over his head it would be reported non stop

and btw,why wasnt coleman at least threatened with a charge when his campaign brought,doctored evidence to the court?

i feel the key to getting out of the mess we r in rests with the justice department and eric holder,we have the same players doing the illegal stuff ovr and ovr again,if holder does not prosecute,nothing will change for the better

if he does prosecute(as he is sworn to do)we will see actual change in our country

bush,cheney ,rumsfeld,gonzolez,rove prosecuted for war crimes,warrentless wiretapping,and violations of the presidential records act would be a good start

one more dis jointed thought....patrick fitzgerald is not fit to serve as an US Attorney,or in the justice department at all,he needs to be charged with obstructing justice for NOT prosecuting cheney EVEN AFTER CHENEY WAS GIVEN A WARNING about his emails NOT BEING KEPT.....how did cheney respond to that warning..his "dissappeared" the hard drives

"Had Democrats ever fought as hard for every single vote as Republicans always do in any election that even approximates being close, President Gore or President Kerry would likely have ensured a very different judicial balance on that SCOTUS by now."

. . .and if the democrats had nominated practically anyone else but Kerry the Rubber Gumby Undertaker who couldn't wait to follow the orders of his totalitarian masters from Skull and Bones . . . . but why go on. I think Obama should appoint him Ambassador to France --- it would go with that Google joke where you type in "french military victories" and select "I'm feeling lucky."

The Republican mentality is that if the Democrats don't win an election by a landslide, then the Rethugs deserve to win by stealing the 3 to 5% of margin of theft as in Ohio Nov 2004 with Kerry and in Florida Nov 2000 with Gore. The Rethugs must have thought that they would have won this election with all the absentee ballots submitted with their help by invalid elders at retirement community homes to vote for Coleman. Plus doing whatever they could to knock off legitimate minority voters and forcing them to vote provisional, many of which get conveniently "spoiled."

coleman and his team are doing everything he can draw out the legal drama as long as they can and stop Franken from being appointed even if it means going all the way up to Scalia and Company and getting the SCOTUS to vote in their favor as in Gore v Bush. Coleman can afford this because he's getting big buck from the Rethugs who have something like 70% of all US assets. They hate Franken and don't want him seated at all costs, hence the reason why the mainstream media beat up on Franken all the time and refer to him as a comedian.

there appears to be some pretty major righwing nutcases in MN and also amongst their supporters who may know something more about Wellstone's "tragic accident".

it seems that soprano tactics have become the modus operandus of the last administration and GOP industrial elite who could care less about the rank and file American citizen who works for a living and many of whom are now unemployed.

sorry for the bitterness, I so despise reading about Coleman and his latest tactics (altering of ballots cast, lying about duplicate ballots, challenging the recount on every single level when it suits him).

coleman and his minions if you are reading this: STOP BEING SUCH AS--HOL-ES

Even if he who has the most gold rules, there is such a thing as "the golden rule" of karma. if you deliberately commit an act that hurts/harms someone, you are responsible for that even if in the short term your money can buy your way out.

All this crap will catch up with you, if not in this lifetime then in the next and the next lifetime you won't have your buddy Scalia and Roberts to grease the wheels of justice.

let's not forget now that Scalia got his Supreme Court appointment after he tossed out a voter fraud case (see out of print book VoteScam by Collier brothers) that had been working its way through the lower courts for nearly 10 years.

The Republicans are subsidizing Coleman's fight so they can keep another Democratic vote out as long as possible. Coleman's being investigated by the FBI and he's refinanced his house 14 times; how could he afford to run the risk of being responsible for court costs, etc., if he loses? He's already got some kind of interim job at the Jewish Republican Consortium (or something like that) to keep him above water, even though he has yet to show up there. He's been in court nearly every day.

I agree with Karen that the phrase in all articles should be "Senator Coleman--currently under investigation by the FBI--..." when ever he is mentioned, just the way the MSM likes to use "comedian" every time they mention Franken, rather than "poliical junkie," or "author," or "political geek who doesn't believe in election fraud".

BTW, Monty, you mention "spoiled" ballots. Got any numbers? I haven't been able to get ANYTHING from ANYBODY about the number of spoiled or provisional ballots in this race, or whether they are being adjudicated in any way. Again, because Franken is too (EXPLITIVE DELETED) to do it.